This page provides updates on the progress of our activities and important announcements.
🔴 2026
Official website, “Protect Hinata,” launched.
🔴 Weekly X Spaces launched
Held every Tuesday at 8:30 p.m.
🔴 The Supreme Court ruled that Hinata, who remains the victim in this case and is still suffering harm, should be returned to the person accused of abusing him—his current legal custodian—who has stated that he intends to take Hinata to China immediately.
🔴 The Kochi Family Court decided to begin proceedings to review the suspension or termination of the current custodian’s parental rights.
In other words, the Kochi Family Court decided to begin the proceedings that the Yokohama Family Court had declined to initiate.
🔴 A criminal complaint was filed with the Kanagawa Prefectural Police.
To better understand Hinata’s situation, we kindly ask that you read the following information first. These sections explain the background and the issues involved in this case.
About Compulsory Enforcement
About Self-Help Recovery
About Ongoing Legal Proceedings
About the Survivor’s Pension for a Minor Child
About Legal Representatives of Minors
About What Happened Last Year
A Request to Everyone
The Supreme Court has ordered that Hinata be returned to his legal custodial parent.
As a result, court enforcement officers may carry out the compulsory transfer of the child.
In practice, such enforcement is often initiated after the High Court’s decision, even before the Supreme Court issues its final ruling.
A child should not be taken against his or her will or by means of violence.
There have been reported cases in which children were taken against their wishes, sometimes involving physical force or coercive methods.
According to people directly involved in such cases, children have been separated from their families through isolation, sudden removal, or other coercive procedures.
Some cases have even occurred inside court buildings after children were told that their opinions would be heard, yet they were taken without being allowed to express those opinions.
In addition, a legal custodial parent may file a Habeas Corpus petition, requesting that anyone allegedly preventing the return of the child be detained.
This means that grandparents caring for the child may themselves face detention or legal restraint.
People have reported being accused simply for waving goodbye to a crying child, standing nearby, or calling the child back after the child voluntarily returned.
These accounts come from individuals who personally experienced such proceedings.
Sometimes a legal custodial parent attempts to recover a child personally, relying on a court decision.
Such recovery should only be possible with permission from the court.
There have been reported cases where children were taken without permission, without notice, and through unlawful means, with the parent later seeking legal recognition after the fact.
According to people directly involved, this has become one of the most common forms of misconduct experienced by parents and caregivers who later lost contact with their children.
Generally, while court proceedings are still pending, actions that would substantially change the child’s circumstances are expected to be avoided.
However, Hinata’s case presents an unusual situation.
At the same time that one court ordered that Hinata be returned to his current legal custodial parent, another court has begun proceedings to examine whether that parent should lose parental rights.
This contradiction deserves careful public attention.
The status quo should normally be maintained while litigation is ongoing.
There is often no practical mechanism to suspend enforcement or other procedures that fundamentally change the child’s circumstances.
In Hinata’s own case, while litigation was still pending, his father unilaterally registered Hinata into his household and obtained legal parental status.
Even though this issue itself required judicial review, those actions were not prevented, nor did they stop the enforcement process.
To avoid contradictions, there is a risk that the weaker party—or the party whose situation is less convenient—may simply disappear from public view.
I do not wish to believe that any court would ever think:
“It would be easier if a difficult case simply left the country.”
However, Hinata’s father has clearly stated his intention to take Hinata to China immediately.
If, even hypothetically, anyone were to think,
“If something happens after the child leaves Japan, the problem disappears,”
I could never accept such a way of thinking.
Hinata is entitled to receive a Survivor’s Pension for Minors because his biological mother passed away.
Until reaching adulthood, he is legally entitled to receive approximately ¥1,000,000 per year under Japan’s survivor’s pension system.
The pension is intended to support a minor living in Japan and should be managed by the person who is actually living with and caring for the child.
The system relies largely on self-reporting.
There is no routine investigation to verify whether the child is actually living in Japan with the registered guardian, nor is there any ongoing confirmation that the child is alive and being cared for appropriately.
As long as someone is registered as the legal custodial parent and the child’s resident registration reflects that relationship, little or no further verification is conducted.
Of the approximately ¥1,000,000 paid each year, about ¥220,000 is intended to support the person raising the child, while the remaining amount is intended for the child’s benefit.
However, according to our understanding, Hinata’s father obtained these payments by exercising parental authority while Hinata was not actually living with him.
Over approximately three and a half years, more than ¥3.5 million intended for Hinata’s welfare was received and used for purposes unrelated to Hinata’s upbringing.
Although Hinata’s father currently states that he has voluntarily stopped receiving these payments, parental authority would allow him to apply again if Hinata were returned to him.
In addition to the survivor’s pension, other benefits—including child allowances, COVID-19 support payments, personal assets inherited from Hinata’s late mother, and various public benefits associated with raising a child—were also obtained through the exercise of parental authority.
Under Japanese law, minors cannot independently exercise many of their legal rights.
This includes receiving medical treatment, reporting abuse, expressing their wishes, making legal requests, and exercising many other rights essential to their daily lives.
Instead, these rights are exercised by the child’s legal representative, who is ordinarily the child’s legal custodial parent.
This authority is granted exclusively to the legal parent.
When the person causing harm to the child is also the child’s legal representative, the child’s requests for help may have no effective legal pathway.
This is one reason why a child may repeatedly express fear or ask for help, yet still not be heard within the legal process.
Personally, I believe that this system can result in children being treated as though they are the property of their legal custodial parent, rather than as individuals with independent rights.
Last year, Hinata’s story was first introduced to the public through the YouTube channel Gairoku Channel.
(The videos are no longer available.)
At that time, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its decision.
However, both the Yokohama District Court and the Tokyo High Court had already ordered that Hinata be returned to his legal custodial parent, despite the abuse allegations.
At the same time, our request to reopen the proceedings regarding the suspension and termination of parental authority in the Yokohama Family Court was effectively dismissed.
The director of the Yokohama North Child Guidance Center also publicly stated:
“I do not believe abuse occurred.”
There was also widespread concern, based on previous cases, that even while appeals or other legal proceedings were still ongoing, once a High Court decision had been issued, compulsory enforcement was often carried out.
Nowhere was Hinata’s own voice truly being heard.
I wanted not only the courts, but people everywhere, to know both the reality of this case and Hinata’s own wishes.
At that point, I believed there was no other way left to protect him.
That was why we decided to appear on Gairoku Channel.
For Hinata, it was a desperate appeal made at great personal risk.
For that reason, we allowed his voice, face, facial expressions, and emotional testimony to be shown without concealment.
I struggled many times with whether photographs and videos should be made public.
However, I concluded that showing his expressions was necessary for people to understand both his current circumstances and his own wishes.
This is Hinata’s reality.
Many people who watched the interview supported our petition.
Afterwards, many YouTubers discussed the case, and countless individuals continued sharing information through social media.
I believe this public attention was one of the reasons compulsory enforcement did not occur last year.
I do not know whether there was no enforcement officer available, whether the court chose not to authorize enforcement, or whether Hinata’s father simply never applied for it.
The truth remains unknown.
Fortunately, neither compulsory enforcement nor an unlawful attempt to take Hinata occurred.
I believe that the concern, support, and actions of so many people helped discourage such actions.
It demonstrated that public awareness can help protect a child facing serious danger.
Thank you sincerely to everyone who stood with us.
After that, however, many of the YouTube videos discussing Hinata’s case gradually disappeared from the internet.
Even so, some people continued to keep information available, and many individuals continued speaking about the case on social media.
I remain deeply grateful to all of them.
Over time, however, public attention gradually faded.
Then, the Supreme Court confirmed the order requiring Hinata to be returned to his legal custodial parent.
As a result, circumstances have once again become more favorable for Hinata’s father.
I now believe that the risk of compulsory enforcement—or even an unlawful attempt to take Hinata—has increased significantly.
Because proceedings concerning the suspension and termination of parental authority are currently underway in the Kochi Family Court, it would be natural to expect that any attempt to recover Hinata would occur before that court reaches its decision.
For that reason, I believe that this is the most dangerous moment we have faced.
Would you be willing to help raise public awareness once again?
Until the Kochi Family Court reaches its decision regarding the suspension and termination of parental authority, and until parental authority is placed in the hands of the appropriate person,
I sincerely hope that neither compulsory enforcement nor any unlawful attempt to remove Hinata will occur.
I hope with all my heart that we can prevent that from happening.
Please help make others aware of this injustice.
Please help share the facts of this case.
Whether through signing the petition or simply telling people you know, I hope you will help spread awareness.
If possible, I would also be grateful if you could share your own thoughts and opinions when you do.
This is the only way we have left to protect Hinata.
The more people who know about this case, and the more people who care, the safer Hinata will be.
Thank you very much for your support.
Junko Yamamoto